.1 If you leave a tag during a round, no matter the reason, you cannot rejoin the same tag during the same round.

.2 The score you contribute to a tag should always start at 0. Even if you've never been part of any tag before that point. The ally only gets the score you accumulate while you are a member of that tag. (I'm thinking this should also apply to hidden score, but can't see a simple way to implement it.)

3. Once a tag has reached it's member limit. No-one should be capable of applying for that tag until the tick after a member has been removed. So any adding or removing of members from a full alliance tag will be visible to everyone.
Alliances having 20 or 30 members lined up & waiting in the application process, accumulating score & waiting to be added, just makes it too easy for allies to abuse the member limit.

4. Limiting defense missions to inside of your galaxy or to your alliance should be hardcoded into the game. If you try to send a defense fleet out of galaxy to a planet not in your alliance, you get an error message & the fleet doesn't launch.

5. Politics should be hardcoded into the game & be visible to everyone.
I'm thinking the ability to offer & accept Nap's & alliances & ofc the ability to declare war on another tag.

If 2 alliances are set to NAPed in game, it becomes impossible for planets from either tag to launch attacks on each other.
This would go a long way in reducing the headaches that comes with being an officer or HC in a large alliance.

If 2 alliances are set to Allied in game, then the limit on defense missions gets expanded to include the allied planets. I'm thinking a joint Allied attack page could become available to members of both tags at that point.
If 3 alliances are all set to Allied in game, it becomes a block & a joint block attack page becomes available to members of all 3 alliances.

If 2 alliances are set to war, then I'm thinking there could be an XP bonus to planets of either tag when they roid planets from the opposing tag. Say 1.5X or 2X XP's when you roid a planet your tag is at war with.
Let's put some benefit into going to war.

Could set time limits for the expiration of these. Say 24 ticks after either side decides to cancel a NAP or alliance, the effects of it are removed.
I'm sure there are other benefits that could be added in game to encourage tags to use the in game politics instead of simply ignoring it & carrying on with business as usual.

Could have a politics page on the universe screen, where it's possible to see the Nap's, Alliances & Wars from every tag in the game. With maybe a ticker counting down the ticks whenever a NAP or alliance has been cancelled.

Open up politics to the masses & make it possible for smaller, less organized alliances to be involved in politics without the need for outside tools to keep track of everything.

If 2 alliances are set to Allied in game, then the limit on defense missions gets expanded to include the allied planets. I'm thinking a joint Allied attack page could become available to members of both tags at that point.
If 3 alliances are all set to Allied in game, it becomes a block & a joint block attack page becomes available to members of all 3 alliances.

Will make it possible to have some alliances, (not mentioning any names :P) to avoid the alliance limit and have secundary alliances. If you hardcode defense, then there should be no escape, ever.

hardcoding defence and not letting you defend people is pretty awful in my opinion.

I have paid for my credit and i will defend who i want to I dont care if they are not in the same tag as me. Also letting allied alliances defend works quite well for little bgs right? I mean we can have 3 30 man tags who can all defend each other!

.1 Why?
.2 While it discourages keeping oot planets, it also discourages recruiting new players (as opposed to shipjumpers). How do you propose to counter this?
.3 I kind of like the game in which alliance HCs can swap members in and out in order to hide score or roid loss. I don't think this has a huge impact on the game for the average player. Good for the learning curve, leave it alone.
.4 I am against this. Freedom = happiness.
.5 I am neutral towards this and if I cba I will write some more later.

__________________The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.

.1 Why?
.2 While it discourages keeping oot planets, it also discourages recruiting new players (as opposed to shipjumpers). How do you propose to counter this?
.3 I kind of like the game in which alliance HCs can swap members in and out in order to hide score or roid loss. I don't think this has a huge impact on the game for the average player. Good for the learning curve, leave it alone..4 I am against this. Freedom = happiness.
.5 I am neutral towards this and if I cba I will write some more later.

.2 The score you contribute to a tag should always start at 0. Even if you've never been part of any tag before that point. The ally only gets the score you accumulate while you are a member of that tag. (I'm thinking this should also apply to hidden score, but can't see a simple way to implement it.)

I would also expand this so that the alliance doesn't lose the score when/if the member decides to shipjump.

Otherwise good ideas, perhaps the limiting of defence fleets is a little extreme though, maybe just no defending planets you're alliance is at war with instead?

I would also expand this so that the alliance doesn't lose the score when/if the member decides to shipjump.
Otherwise good ideas, perhaps the limiting of defence fleets is a little extreme though, maybe just no defending planets you're alliance is at war with instead?

I'd have to disagree here. If we're aiming at the PA alliance rankings saying something other than "how much score did your members accumulate while intag" then surely being able to actually hold onto those members should be something we should try to take into account somewhat. Similarly I'd be opposed to the second part of your suggestion, if you can't control your members then I don't see why the game should do it for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

If you leave a tag during a round, no matter the reason, you cannot rejoin the same tag during the same round.

I really have no idea what this is aimed at combatting.

I like 3), it's a funky kind of change. 2) I'm cool with as well (we're just basically saying hiding score shouldn't be allowed at all though yeah? 4) I'm opposed to for the reasons already outlined, it's not a healthy growth strategy at all if we're ever going to try and gain new players. 5)'s been batted around loads over the last while. The nap/ally thing isn't that complicated and bar my fear of pateam coding things in an utterly ****tarded manner again (like this round where whoever's responsible for coding decided to declare war on everyone who uses a mobile phone to access the game) I can't see too many problems to it (although I wouldn't use the time expiry thing, if someone wants to backstab I'm pro that). The war thing is a bit different. Wouldn't you just declare war on everyone bar the alliances you're napped to?

Quote:

Open up politics to the masses & make it possible for smaller, less organized alliances to be involved in politics without the need for outside tools to keep track of everything.

We have that now really. I know quite a few people would just check our ingame intel if they were picking targets and needed to avoid NAPed planets last round.

__________________Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.

We have that now really. I know quite a few people would just check our ingame intel if they were picking targets and needed to avoid NAPed planets last round.

I dont know how Munin would cope but couldnt you make Asc's intel public at say tick 200+? You constantly argue that other alliances should open up there intel, so why dont you do it for them

__________________
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.

We actually did do that one round, but certain individuals abused the privilege and it got killed off. Public intel was one of the two main goals of #transcendancy, besides public scans. That said, I have no objections to making Munin intel accessible to everyone, though read-only this time. Though personally, were I HC of a non-Ascendancy alliance, I would most certainly try to beat Ascendancy to it (forcing your members going to another alliance for intel is a bad idea).

That said, you misunderstand our criticism. Your alliances already have intel. If you want access to it, make them give it to you. Power to the people and all that jazz.

__________________The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.

I dont know how Munin would cope but couldnt you make Asc's intel public at say tick 200+? You constantly argue that other alliances should open up there intel, so why dont you do it for them

I meant for people in ascendancy if they couldn't get on irc and all. As mz said we did it once. People complained and moaned and bitched and changed their details and demanded to know how we knew who they were though. Plus as I do most of the intel each round I'm not really bothered doing it for the benefit of people who aren't even grateful for it.

__________________Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.

I'd have to disagree here. If we're aiming at the PA alliance rankings saying something other than "how much score did your members accumulate while intag" then surely being able to actually hold onto those members should be something we should try to take into account somewhat.

They gained the score whilst they were in your alliance, therefore, imo, the score is as much the alliances as the planets. You know as well as I do that people leaving alliances midround generally are spineless shipjumpers looking for protection and not people genuinely dissatisfied with a "crap" alliance and I think this would be somewhat of a reassurance to the alliance that gets screwed over by selfish members.

It would also allow alliances to take more of a chance on people who have no proven record or perhaps even a poor track record as it doesn't matter what they do (if they shipjump or end up shit), any score they do gain will contribute to your score anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Similarly I'd be opposed to the second part of your suggestion, if you can't control your members then I don't see why the game should do it for you.

I made this suggestion as an expansion of what Grog suggested originally to make it more tolerable, like I said, its extreme and I wouldn't necessarily be supportive of limiting defence fleets at all.

Will make it possible to have some alliances, (not mentioning any names :P) to avoid the alliance limit and have secundary alliances. If you hardcode defense, then there should be no escape, ever.

While it's true that it'd make it possible to avoid the ally limit by running two tags, they avoid the ally limit as it is anyway.
By making NAP's, Alliances, Wars public for all to see, I think it'd offset the benefit of running two tags simply by making it transparent for everyone to see what it is they're doing.
I'm not suggesting there be an ETA benefit to allied tags, simply the ability to
defend each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benneh

letting allied alliances defend works quite well for little bgs right? I mean we can have 3 30 man tags who can all defend each other!

:|

It may benefit smaller tags at times, it'd almost certainly be of more benefit to the larger tags with quality external tools already available to them.
If I was trying to suggest this purely because I think it'd benefit my current situation I'd of suggested a shared defense page too. (which I think would be a bad idea)

My main reasoning for wanting allied tags able to defend each other, is to keep situations like the attempted fleetcatch on lizardking last round possible.
With members of 3 alliances attacking & members of 3 different alliances defending. Those are entertaining & exciting situations that make planetarion fun. I wouldn't want PA to lose that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

.2 While it discourages keeping oot planets, it also discourages recruiting new players (as opposed to shipjumpers). How do you propose to counter this?

I don't see that at all, the alliance limit is set up so that the bottom members never contribute to the ally score anyway.
If you think a candidate will be active & useful to your alliance then why wouldn't you accept him. Even if he's going to be starting at 0 & join the bottom part of the tag that isn't counted.
I think most alliances are hoping that recruits will be long time members, so if its a quality applicant who may not contribute score to the tag that round but probably will in the future, then why wouldn't he be accepted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

(although I wouldn't use the time expiry thing, if someone wants to backstab I'm pro that).

Well the expiry thing could certainly be optional, perhaps a choice of 0-48 ticks to be determined beforehand & agreed upon by both sides before the agreement can be implemented.
:-) I just think that the entire universe being able to watch the ticker counting down in situations like the CT/Asc NAP ending last round could be entertaining.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The war thing is a bit different. Wouldn't you just declare war on everyone bar the alliances you're napped to?

Yeah I've been trying to think of some way to balance that.
How about a war tax? Say a 1% resource tax on every planet in the tag for every war you have declared.
So you'd have to balance the benefit of the extra XPs against the resource costs in declaring war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

We have that now really. I know quite a few people would just check our ingame intel if they were picking targets and needed to avoid NAPed planets last round.

Well the political situations are often secretive & nothing more then rumor to a big part of planetarion.
I'm thinking of grps like OPA (Old Pharts Alliance) who returned to planetarion with little fanfare & struggled to play PA without using IRC.
With NAPs/Alliances/Wars all open for everyone to see, they'd know what was going on in the political arena without having to know the right people.

With NAPs/Alliances/Wars all being hardcoded into the game it would actually be possible for tags like that to communicate in game with each other, propose alliances, declare wars & setup joint attacks with other allies & never have to join IRC to do so.

For PA to hope to attract more members it really needs to have all parts of the game accessible to new people without them being forced to download & install anything.
It needs the flexibility to have new grps of people getting involved in all aspects of the game & being able to play it on there own terms.
If a grp of gamers who use MSN, facebook or anything else to communicate with each other, decide to try PA, they shouldn't be handicapped in what they can be involved in because they don't use IRC.
Hardcoding politics into the game would be a big step towards that.

They gained the score whilst they were in your alliance, therefore, imo, the score is as much the alliances as the planets. You know as well as I do that people leaving alliances midround generally are spineless shipjumpers looking for protection and not people genuinely dissatisfied with a "crap" alliance and I think this would be somewhat of a reassurance to the alliance that gets screwed over by selfish members.

An alliance is nothing more than the sum total of its members' efforts in my opinion. Frankly I'd say it's your (obviously not specifically you) fault for recruiting spineless shipjumpers in the first place.

Quote:

It would also allow alliances to take more of a chance on people who have no proven record or perhaps even a poor track record as it doesn't matter what they do (if they shipjump or end up shit), any score they do gain will contribute to your score anyway.

Hmm, I would have said that the alliance member limit is more of a limiting factor on recruiting people you're not sure on to be honest. There'd be a small danger of this being abusable as well, get planets to crash for xp and then swap in a planet with better score-gaining potential so you hold onto the xp score but you still have the actual fleet, or something close to it, that it was gained with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

How about a war tax? Say a 1% resource tax on every planet in the tag for every war you have declared.
So you'd have to balance the benefit of the extra XPs against the resource costs in declaring war.

I really don't like the idea of losing value in order to gain xp heh. We're already punishing the value aspect of going to war this round by nerfing salvage, going even further in that direction isn't that healthy in my opinion.

I'd agree as far as hardcoding politics into the game would be a nice shift. What I wouldn't like to see is it decreasing the actual political options you have.

__________________Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.

I'd like to draw some comparisons between other features in the game, more specifically the inconsistencies and why some of these should be implemented.

1. If you leave a galaxy through your decision or the GC, you do not get back in that galaxy again. Why should it be any different for alliances? If you can't control members in your galaxy or they are providing intel that is damaging you, the galaxy exiles them and takes the score loss. Why shouldn't it be the same for alliances?

2. The score you contribute to the galaxy score is lost if you leave the galaxy and when you join a galaxy any score you gain starts at 0. Again, why should it be any different for alliances?

3. The concern here seems to be about hiding roids/score, yet as the rounds progress, people complain about hiding production and now you can only add to factories that are already in an order. If planets cannot hide production, alliances should not be able to hide roids/score.

Now you can always make the argument that alliances are different then planets/galaxies, but the fact of the matter is these are some big inconsistencies in the game.

A long time ago your galaxy was your home and you could survive without an alliance. Now, your alliance is your home. This will put them on more of an equal playing field for competition.

1. You can exile into a galaxy you've been in before, as far as I know: <RR|Away> my gal exiled me <RR|Away> but <RR|Away> the exile thingy <RR|Away> has put me back in the same gal <RR|Away> with a diff number <RR|Away> i went from to

2. It's not.

3. I think they removed that particular feature for the real round. I might be wrong here though!

__________________The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.

1. You can exile into a galaxy you've been in before, as far as I know: <RR|Away> my gal exiled me <RR|Away> but <RR|Away> the exile thingy <RR|Away> has put me back in the same gal <RR|Away> with a diff number <RR|Away> i went from to

Afaik this is true also. In the past I've heard of people who this happened to complaining to PAteam, who would then give them a free exile. I also vaguely remember that they will no longer do this though.

As far as war bonus XP, I like the idea in general; the objective as I see it is to reward strategic warring over galraiding and noob bashing. That leads me to think the war bonus should be based on ally wide participation rather than on individual planet basis, so maybe a % XP bonus could be granted based on how many fleets your total ally has heading towards the ally you're at war with (maybe even with a component of what % of fleets that ally has headed back at you, which would further encourage the other ally to join the war and give alliances that are being ganged more of a selection of targets than the gang has). I think this would either encourage more active (24/7 rolling launches) use of fleets during wartime or a single, more concentrated/planned all out attack -- depending on how the actual formula is written. This would also be an incentive for almost all planets to join in the war on a common goal instead of some planets noob bashing on the side. But then I think this is getting far too complicated (and potentially abusable in its current form), and a more simple solution would be to have a tradeoff for declaring war and getting the bonus XP.

Taxing value is not that answer, but maybe population can finally have a use! The # of population could slowly decrease while at war, having the effect of less slider to work with, maybe something like 1% less per day at war. In peacetime it would grow again, and this tax would have less of an effect as the round goes on. This would probably discourage everyone from declaring war on everyone (don't forget that the other allies would get bonus from landing on you too).

Afaik this is true also. In the past I've heard of people who this happened to complaining to PAteam, who would then give them a free exile. I also vaguely remember that they will no longer do this though.

It's highly annoying for galaxies who exile a player only for them to come back immediately, as well as players who pay to exile and end up back where they exiled from.

I'm not expecting a system which prevents you from going back to any galaxy you've exiled from, as you could obviously keep on exiling until you get a galaxy you choose. However there needs to be some basic code to stop you going straight back.

Sorry if it's a bit off-topic, but it's an issue which should've been sorted ages ago.

Agree with most of the things you say except the part where you can't rejoin the same tag, PA has too many drunk people for that

All your other suggestions are in my opinion a step forward in creating a more open game which actually promotes fighting

I agree with most of it aswell, but as Vdm I do think people should be able to rejoin tag

Also, making it impossible to defend non allied planets and such would probably make it easier for spies to map members...this also goes for napped allies. If they hit someone and get an error, it means its a certain allie

Im all for hardcoding alot of this stuff into the game though. Ive suggested it several times myself. I hope we'll see some changes on this front.

Jonas

__________________
When we discover the centre of the universe, alot of people will be shocked and dissapointed to know that they are not it!

.2 The score you contribute to a tag should always start at 0. Even if you've never been part of any tag before that point. The ally only gets the score you accumulate while you are a member of that tag. (I'm thinking this should also apply to hidden score, but can't see a simple way to implement it.)

It effectively works like that now, its just reset when you leave your last alliance rather at joining the new one. IMHO the current systems better than the proposed one as it doesn't lead alliances to accept and worry later simply for score reasons. It gives you a period where you can interview them, make sure they are active, make sure they fit in ect ect before accepting them.

Quote:

3. Once a tag has reached it's member limit. No-one should be capable of applying for that tag until the tick after a member has been removed. So any adding or removing of members from a full alliance tag will be visible to everyone.
Alliances having 20 or 30 members lined up & waiting in the application process, accumulating score & waiting to be added, just makes it too easy for allies to abuse the member limit.

But then you would just always keep your membership numbers to 1 less than the limit and be able to keep your wait list as it is. You could ofc make the 'applicants' count as part of the member numbers when it comes to this system BUT thats just going to be a pain for alliances when unwanted applicants apply and prevent any chance of getting the applicants you want.

Perhaps a better way would be to have a max wait time as an applicant. Once that expires you will be ineligible to reapply for that alliance which would remove long term wait lists

Quote:

4. Limiting defense missions to inside of your galaxy or to your alliance should be hardcoded into the game. If you try to send a defense fleet out of galaxy to a planet not in your alliance, you get an error message & the fleet doesn't launch.

The problem here is for new players, if they get invited by friends then the friends should be able to give them some help to get started in the game while they find themselves an active galaxy and an alliance to help them otherwise they are quickly going to find themselves on the outskirts of the game and heading towards quitting. You need a way to allow this without allowing for tag abuse.

Quote:

5. Politics should be hardcoded into the game & be visible to everyone.
I'm thinking the ability to offer & accept Nap's & alliances & ofc the ability to declare war on another tag.

If 2 alliances are set to NAPed in game, it becomes impossible for planets from either tag to launch attacks on each other.
This would go a long way in reducing the headaches that comes with being an officer or HC in a large alliance.

If 2 alliances are set to Allied in game, then the limit on defense missions gets expanded to include the allied planets. I'm thinking a joint Allied attack page could become available to members of both tags at that point.
If 3 alliances are all set to Allied in game, it becomes a block & a joint block attack page becomes available to members of all 3 alliances.

If 2 alliances are set to war, then I'm thinking there could be an XP bonus to planets of either tag when they roid planets from the opposing tag. Say 1.5X or 2X XP's when you roid a planet your tag is at war with.
Let's put some benefit into going to war.

Could set time limits for the expiration of these. Say 24 ticks after either side decides to cancel a NAP or alliance, the effects of it are removed.
I'm sure there are other benefits that could be added in game to encourage tags to use the in game politics instead of simply ignoring it & carrying on with business as usual.

Could have a politics page on the universe screen, where it's possible to see the Nap's, Alliances & Wars from every tag in the game. With maybe a ticker counting down the ticks whenever a NAP or alliance has been cancelled.

Open up politics to the masses & make it possible for smaller, less organized alliances to be involved in politics without the need for outside tools to keep track of everything.

Politics in tag are good BUT they have to be limited, especially on the defence front. You can't make it so its a way around the tag limit

__________________
WakeyPD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]The Farnborough CrewCos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew

I'd have to disagree here. If we're aiming at the PA alliance rankings saying something other than "how much score did your members accumulate while intag" then surely being able to actually hold onto those members should be something we should try to take into account somewhat. Similarly I'd be opposed to the second part of your suggestion, if you can't control your members then I don't see why the game should do it for you.

I have always felt that alliances should keep score as it has been helped to be gained by the alliance. However I see your point so what about a middle ground on it. As value is part of score if you lose that value it does seem unfair that the alliance keeps it HOWEVER score also has an XP element to it, this is effectively mission score which the alliance in most cases has helped with so it can be argued they have some right to. So when they leave/kicked the alliance loses all the value gained while in the alliance but keeps the xp gained

__________________
WakeyPD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]The Farnborough CrewCos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew

Agree with most of the things you say except the part where you can't rejoin the same tag, PA has too many drunk people for that

All your other suggestions are in my opinion a step forward in creating a more open game which actually promotes fighting

Make quitting an alliance not immediate and its not a problem (same with kicks).

They get placed in a purgatory situation for say 24 hours which can be reversed (if you quit then you can retract it, if you are kicked then the hc can retract it) then issues of 'in the moment' or 'drunk' quits aren't an issue in the same way

__________________
WakeyPD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]The Farnborough CrewCos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew